Habeas Corpus Petitions Can't Be Allowed To Become Infructuous Due To Pendency Outlasting Period Of Detention: J&K High Court
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a habeas corpus writ petition cannot be dismissed solely because the period of preventive detention has expired during the pendency of the case. The court emphasized that allowing the petition to lapse on this ground would undermine the rule of law and suggest that personal liberty is restored merely by the passage of time, rather than through enforcing rights.
Justice Rahul Bharti, while adjudicating the case, stated: "A habeas corpus writ petition cannot be allowed to suffer self-abortion because of its pendency outlasting the prescribed period of detention as that would be simply telling an aggrieved petitioner as a detenue that it is not by operation the rule of law that he has regained his personal liberty but just by an efflux of time and that would always be a very sad statement on a case in so far as approach of a constitutional court towards adjudication of writ of habeas corpus is concerned."
The case involved the preventive detention of the petitioner under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. The petitioner, detained for over a year, challenged the detention order issued by the District Magistrate of Poonch. The magistrate had relied on two old criminal cases from 2006 and 2007 to justify the detention, asserting that the petitioner's activities posed a threat to state security.
The court, however, found the reliance on these stale cases problematic. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Sama Aruna v. State of Telangana and Others, Justice Bharti reiterated that incidents that are too remote in time cannot serve as valid grounds for preventive detention.
In Sama Aruna, the Supreme Court held: "The live and proximate link that must exist between the past conduct of a person and the imperative need to detain him must be taken to have been snapped in this case." The court in the present case echoed this sentiment, finding no current or immediate danger posed by the petitioner.
The court also invoked the precedent set in Rupesh Kantilal Savla v. State of Gujarat, which mandates the expeditious disposal of habeas corpus petitions, even if there is no specific rule prescribing a time limit. Justice Bharti criticized the undue delay in responding to the petition, stressing that fundamental rights, particularly the right to personal liberty, require prompt judicial attention.
Furthermore, the court cited Khaja Bilal Ahmed v. State of Telangana, highlighting the requirement for fresh and relevant material to justify preventive detention. Justice Bharti stated that basing detention on outdated criminal records without a clear and present threat amounts to a violation of the petitioner's rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
On examining the grounds of detention, the court remarked, "The satisfaction to be arrived at by the detaining authority must not be based on irrelevant or invalid grounds. It must be arrived at on the basis of relevant material; material which is not stale and has a live link with the satisfaction of the detaining authority."
Concluding the judgment, the court set aside the preventive detention order, directing the petitioner's immediate release, unless he was required in another pending case.
Case Title: Rahees Hayat alias Ayaz Vs Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 257